The experience she relates reminds me a hell of a lot of the way my previous job ended, which amounted to a handful of offended people uninterested in (directly) talking, and (my direct) management largely uninterested in reconciliation / facilitating. All of the problems she relates are with people who are not directly communicating with her, usually after she's directly communicating with them. Whereas, according to the story she relates, everyone who actually engages with her likes the experience.
Over all, it paints a picture of GH where the management (and many / some employee) are not fans of directly dealing with problems, which, IMHO, speaks to people who don't do it often enough. Most of the time, when I (or others who've related stories) "turn" to directly deal with a people problem, it turns out not to be much of a problem at all. It's only when you try to deal indirectly, or not all, that things go south and eventually explode.
Interestingly, all of the people at my last company that I had this issue with were in the Bay Area, and I didn't have this issue with folks in other remote offices.
To be fair, GitHub is large enough that they'll have a dozen applicants by the time you're out the door. If resolving a problem is harder than firing part of it, well... that's the layer cake.
Similar. I've kinda learned that some people just have a lot of trouble with direct communication - especially from peers or people they don't report to or don't consider authoritative for whatever reason. They'll come up with all sorts of complaints about diction, tone, format, vocabulary, or medium but the reality is they just don't like to communicate that way.
The strategy I use is to qualify and de-personalize everything. This is less persuasive writing, verbose, and slightly annoying but is "safer" if you don't know your audience. "It may be better", "X seems like it could be asked better", "help me understand your thoughts for X over Y", "what if we tried asking X like this? It might have this effect".
This is categorically less efficient communication but is arguably more 'effective' if it means people don't get offended. As it's hard to be effective when people are complaining to their managers.
Over all, it paints a picture of GH where the management (and many / some employee) are not fans of directly dealing with problems, which, IMHO, speaks to people who don't do it often enough. Most of the time, when I (or others who've related stories) "turn" to directly deal with a people problem, it turns out not to be much of a problem at all. It's only when you try to deal indirectly, or not all, that things go south and eventually explode.
Interestingly, all of the people at my last company that I had this issue with were in the Bay Area, and I didn't have this issue with folks in other remote offices.